One of the major criticisms of the western canon is that it excludes women and people of color. much work has been done to see that it is expanded to include representative works of traditionally excluded groups. many tradition-oriented people feel that many of these works are inferior to the european male authors that get bumped out of curricula and anthologies to make room. harold bloom, for instance, thinks that is wrong. consider bloom's argument and read the following quote. [s]he remembers as a child (as i do), paging through anthologies of poetry, in vain, looking for the names of women. surely there was some other female writer besides dickinson or sappho? maybe the countess of pembroke? how thrilling it was, back then, to find a female name, even if it was attached to a relatively uninspiring poem. it was thrilling just to see that women wrote . . room had to be made for these other voices . . (carol muske, critic and author) do you think that certain literature should be taught and/or anthologized because it is written by a woman or underrepresented ethnic group, even if it is at the expense of a "more inspiring" author? do you think you would feel the same way if you were a different sex or color? answer in complete sentences.

1. read the following excerpt from franklin d. roosevelt's "fireside chat 19":

on the other side of the picture, we must learn also to know that guerilla warfare against the germans in, let us say serbia or norway, us; that a successful russian offensive against the germans us; and that british successes on land or sea in any part of the world strengthen our hands.

remember always that germany and italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the united states at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with britain or russia. and germany puts all the other republics of the americas into the same category of enemies. the people of our sister republics of this hemisphere can be honored by that fact.  

the true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. when we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. we americans are not destroyers — we are builders.

analyze the effectiveness of this excerpt. how does it function within the speech as a whole? how does the structure of the excerpt to convey the speech's purpose and key points? support your argument with evidence from the speech. (10 points)

what do you mean

they played you again smh, you should be provided with the right answers.